[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> SBC v S & S-A [2015] EWFC B52 (15 May 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2015/B52.html Cite as: [2015] EWFC B52

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

In the Family Court at Reading

		11th May 2015 To 15th May 2015

Introduction

I am dealing with applications for a care order and placement order in respect of J aged 20 months.

I have read all of the evidence contained in the Court Bundles and handed in through the course of this hearing, and heard from various witnesses.

Background

On the 5^th August 2013, a referral was received by SBC Children's Services from the Police concerning a domestic violence incident that took place on the 1^st August 2013 between the father and mother. The mother was 9 months pregnant with J. SJS accepts that she asked a friend to call the Police because she could not herself due to HSA being in the house. She also accepts that she was frightened by his behaviour and at this point did not pursue a non-molestation order against him. He returned to live in the home with SJS. A home visit was undertaken on the 12^th August 2013. On the 30^th August 2013 J was born at the Wexham Park Hospital. On the 2^nd September 2013, an Initial Child Protection Case Conference was convened and J was made subject to a Child Protection Plan under the category of 'Physical Abuse'.

Part of the Child Protection Plan was for HSA to attend the DVIP and for the mother to attend the Freedom Project. By the time proceedings were commenced, neither parent had attended, despite saying they would.

The care application was issued on 4^th March 2014 and the relevant date for the purposes of threshold is 14^th February 2014 when the Local Authority commenced child protection measures.

The first hearing for this matter was 6^th March 2014 and originally a final hearing was timetabled to take place on 27^th to 29^th August 2014. At an interim hearing on 4^th August 2014 to consider the removal of J from the care of his mother, SBC were given permission to instruct a residential assessment centre. Jamma Umoja was identified and the final hearing was re-listed for 5^th to 7^th January 2015. On 2^nd December 2014 I heard this matter for the first time and listed the matter for an adjourned IRH and contested interim care hearing before DJ Wakem on 5^th December 2014. On 5^th December 2014 the Court approved the instruction of an ISW to undertake an assessment of the capacity of HSA to parent J with the support of his family and it was agreed that SJS and J would be placed in a mother and baby foster placement in Bletchley, Milton Keynes. The final hearing was re-listed for 14^th to 16^th January 2015 before me. At that adjourned final hearing threshold was agreed but I agreed to adjourn and relist the final hearing to 11^th to 15^th May 2015 to enable SJS to instruct her solicitors (final evidence of the Local Authority not having been seen by her due to being sent to an incorrect address), and gave permission to instruct Dr Jayne Allam to carry out a psychological assessment of both parents, there being some indications of positive changes on the part of SJS from the foster carer.

The Placement Order application was initially thought to have been submitted by the Local Authority in January 2015. However, it appears that the correct paperwork was not submitted and the application was in fact received on 12^th May 2015 and issued on 13^th May 2015, midway through this hearing. The final care plan was for placement and all parties agree that notwithstanding such late service of the paperwork, the issues relating to placement are linked to the care proceedings and therefore should be determined at the same time.

Threshold

The Local Authority alleges that the criteria are met on the basis of risk of physical harm and emotional harm. Threshold was accepted by all parties in January on the following basis:

SJS and HSA have been involved in a domestically abusive relationship as set out at (F6) that has placed J at risk of suffering significant physical and emotional harm. I therefore adopt this as my threshold findings in this case.

Parties' Positions

The Local Authority seeks a final care order and placement order in relation to J. It is their case that neither parent can safely parent J to a good enough standard and there are no other kinship carers. The Local Authority does not accept that SJS and HSA have separated in the way that the parents allege. The Local Authority case is also that SJS cannot parent J adequately in the community now and is unlikely to be able to do so within a timeframe that is appropriate for J. The Guardian supports this view.

SJS opposes the making of care and placement orders and seeks to be allowed to care for J, albeit she accepts that she is not yet ready to leave the foster placement. She argues that she has separated from HSA and has been caring for J to a good enough standard whilst in the foster care placement and would, after a period of three months more in the foster placement, be able to do so in the community. She therefore asks me to adjourn this final hearing for a period of three months to enable her to remain in her current placement with J, and to enable her to demonstrate that she is able to address the remaining issues

HSA now accepts that he cannot care for J on his own and is no longer therefore putting himself forward as a carer. He supports SJS to care for J and if J does stay with SJS he seeks regular contact with J to include staying contact on alternate weekends at the Paternal Grandmother's home. He also supports SJS's application to adjourn this final hearing. If I conclude that the care and placement orders should be granted, he seeks direct contact once per month until an adoptive placement has been found for J.

The Guardian supports the making of care and placement orders and opposes the application to adjourn. She argues that J needs a decision about permanency now and that three months is also not going to address the deep-seated issues which SJS has and which require therapy.

Expert evidence

As previously noted, Jamma Umoja were instructed to complete a residential assessment of both parents capacity to parent J. Their weekly summaries commencing 1^st September 2014 to 1^st December 2014, interim report, placement review meeting notes and final report dated 18^th November 2014 can be found at E20-231 of the Bundle. The assessment concluded that neither parent was able to meet J's needs safely, either together or individually. They also concluded that the parents' relationship was an unhealthy one and that there was a high likelihood that they would remain together, as well as there being a potential for ongoing domestic violence between them.

Dr Jayne Allam, Forensic Psychologist, was instructed to complete a psychological assessment of both parents. Her report, dated 22^nd March 2015 is at E232 – 348. She concluded that both parents have long standing difficulties, were highly defended and had not always been honest with professionals. She was also of the opinion that they had not emotionally separated and noted that phone records appear to show them remaining in contact when they denied having had contact whilst separated.

The Domestic Violence Intervention Programme (DVIP) was also instructed to undertake an assessment of HSA and their report detailing HSA's failure to attend for earlier appointments with them is at E18-19. Since January 2015, HSA has begun to attend the programme again and has completed 18 sessions to date.

The Guardian in this case was initially SG and her first report dated 24^th March 2014 is at E1-12. She was replaced as Guardian by JW on 24^th June 2014 and her report dated 12^th January 2015 is at E349-360. Her final report is dated 12^th May 2015 (E361) and concludes that a Placement Order is in J's best interests.

Other professional evidence

There have been five social work statements filed in this case. The most recent (at C129-152) is that of SS who became J's sole allocated social worker on 12^th September 2014. Prior to this, in July 2014, SS was allocated to work alongside his previous social worker. SS was also asked to complete a Parenting Assessment of SJS which was overtaken by the assessment completed at Jamma Umoja. SS concluded in her updating statement of 2^nd December 2014 (to be found at C72-83) that J could not remain in the care of his parents at that time and that permanency outside of the family needed to be progressed for J. It remains her assessment that J cannot be cared for by SJS as detailed in her final statement starting at C129. Her evidence to me was to confirm her previous statements and to emphasise that the Local Authority had thought about how SJS might be provided with the same level of support in the community as that afforded to her in the foster placement. She told me that the Local Authority could not provide the same level of support long term and therefore she remained of the view that J was at risk if SJS were to parent him in the community.

A Viability Assessment of SJA, maternal grandmother, was completed on 3^rd March 2014. That assessment was negative and no alternative kinship carers are put forward in this case.

A statement has also been filed by the foster carer with whom SJS and J are currently placed, HT. She also gave me evidence in the course of this final hearing to the effect that SJS had made positive progress whilst placed with her but did still require prompting.

Mother's and Father's evidence

SJS has filed five statements in this case. Her most recent statement was filed on 8^th May 2015. In it she denies that she has remained in contact with HSA and confirms that she wants J to remain in her care. She gave me evidence to this effect and also told me that she accepts she cannot currently care for J in the community and would need to remain in her current foster placement with him for some time.

HSA has also filed five statements in this case. His most recent statement was filed on 8^th May 2015 and confirms that he is not putting himself forward to care for J but supports J remaining with his mother. If I decide to endorse the Local Authority plan for adoption, he told me that he would agree to adoption for J. He also denies remaining in contact with SJS. He clarified in his evidence before me that he would like contact with J to be reintroduced and for him to have contact with J at least once a week if J stays with his mother, or once a month prior to adoption if I endorse the plan for adoption. He accepts that this would be a reintroduction of contact and that any pre-adoption contact would be dependent upon his meeting with the social worker to discuss options. Post adoption he accepted that there would be no direct contact.

Relevant legal considerations

In addition to considering section 31 (2) of the Children Act 1989 with regard to threshold, and the welfare checklists contained in section1 of the Children Act 1989 and section 1 of the Adoption & Children Act 2002, I have also had regard to the cases of Re B-S and Re R. Given that there is a factual dispute in this case about the extent to which the parents have separated, emotionally and physically, I have also had particular regard to the principle reiterated in the recent case of Re K that it is for the Local Authority to prove, to the civil standard, on proper evidence, any facts upon which they rely.

Threshold Findings

In this case threshold is accepted by all parties and as I have stated earlier, I adopt the threshold criteria as set out at A68 as my threshold findings.

Options in this case

There are only two options before me in this case. Option one is for J to remain in the care of his mother and to adjourn the final hearing for her to remain in the current foster placement. Option two is for me to make a care order with a plan for adoption and to grant a placement order.

Analysis of these options – advantages and disadvantages of each

In relation to the first option, it is clear and not disputed that SJS has fared better in her current foster placement than she did in Jamma Umoja. SS accepted that, in the context of the extremely supportive environment of a mother and baby foster placement and with prompting from HT, SJS has been able to parent to a good enough standard. For J to remain in the care of his mother would be an ideal option for him if SJS were to be able to consistently parent him to a good enough standard. It would enable him to remain with his mother, who has been his primary carer since he was born. However, the disadvantages of this option all centre upon the extent to which SJS has made changes to the way in which she parents J, the extent to which she is able to sustain these and future changes and her ability to prioritise his needs above her own. It is greatly to her credit, as is conceded by the Local Authority, that she accepts she is not ready at the moment to leave the foster placement. This does demonstrate some insight on her part. It is also to HSA's credit that he accepts he cannot parent J on his own and that he is not ready for the responsibility which being a parent requires.

SJS argues that she has made significant changes and that the evidence of the foster carer, HT, supports this. As was noted by the Guardian, however, the evidence of the foster carer is more complicated. Whilst it is clear that SJS can at times parent J to a good enough standard in the placement, it is striking that HT herself details numerous examples of having to prompt SJS about basic parenting tasks.

The Guardian in her evidence to me also commented on the number of prompts required when she was asked by Ms Mitchell on behalf of SJS about positives whilst in the placement – she said that there are positives but these have been brought about by a lot of prompting. One of the most significant examples of this prompting is on 13^th April 2015 when HT advised SJS about taking J to the doctor, and then had to prompt her twice to make the appointment which was ultimately booked by HT herself on 16^th April 2015 (C179). After that appointment, SJS needed to fill a prescription for J and again HT had to prompt her several times over four days to get the prescription filled, culminating in HT taking SJS to the chemist on 22^nd April 2015 to ensure that it was done (C179). HT also details at C180 how she has had to remind SJS several times over the past few months up to 25^th April 2015 to ensure that J has his teeth brushed twice a day.

Inconsistencies about mealtimes are also recorded by HT at C182. On 25^th March 2015 she had to prompt SJS to feed J his lunch before a lengthy bus journey into Milton Keynes. HT notes at C195 that this was an example of SJS compromising J's routine to prioritise spending time with her friend. She also refers to instances of SJS not readily accepting her advice and being less than honest with her, such as when SJS alleged that HT's mother had advised her to feed J an apple which was not the case (C183). HT also notes that SJS received an indecent image from a male she had met and been talking to. It is concerning that SJS did not seem to appreciate the seriousness of this until HT pointed it out to her and prompted her to delete the image (C192).

There are also examples given by HT of inconsistencies and concerns about enforcing boundaries. At C197 she details that J was playing with a ball indoors on 2^nd May 2015 and SJS allowed this, despite an ongoing conversation that footballs were not allowed indoors. The ball hit HT's computer whereupon she took it and put it out of reach. SJS then told J that he was not allowed the football which prompted him to hit out at SJS in frustration. At C198 she comments that she "has spoken to SJS about repeating herself and the fact that this is having no significant effect. I have also given alternative strategies on how to deal with challenging situations". Tellingly, at C200, she records "J is becoming more persistent and SJS I feel needs to keep even more boundaries than she is on a few things and to maintain consistency. IE I do not allow footballs indoors. SJS will allow J to play with the ball indoors when I am not around. When I am around SJS will tell J he is not allowed the ball and take it from him. (SJS will allow J to have the ball, as she does not want him to cry." This also identifies some resistance on SJS's part to take on board advice from HT, I find.

Basic safety does also seem to be a concern, again as highlighted by the Guardian. At C199, HT records seeing J walk around with inappropriate items (an example is given of pencils in his hand). At this same point in her statement she also gives another example from early April of SJS not responding to her advice in relation to how she tackles inappropriate behaviour from J in relation to his need to be gentle with the dogs in the home. She records that "in my opinion SJS was not in a positive frame of mind so I told SJS that I was going to end the conversation as I felt she was being negative this morning".

HT also details two incidents on 1^st and 4^th April 2015 when SJS either refused to take her advice, or did so with rude comments about it, in relation to not changing J on the table in a café (C202). At C194, HT also notes that she has had to remind SJS about J needing to wear a vest in cold weather "throughout placement". There are also several instances of HT noting that SJS needs to spend less time on her phone so that she can spend more quality time with J without distraction (for example as noted at C187).

As was submitted on behalf of the Guardian in closing, I find that basic care needs of J have not been consistently met by SJS whilst in the foster care placement without prompting from HT on numerous occasions, and that this has been an ongoing issue, right up to early May as detailed in the statement of HT and her logs up to 3^rd May 2015. It is true that there are also lots of positives in the observations of HT and that SJS has made some positive progress whilst in the placement with her. However, HT's evidence is very balanced, covering both positives and negatives. The fact that basic care needs are still not being met without prompting up to early May is a significant concern and overall persuades me that the progress made is not as significant as SJS would like to think.

SS told me that she has concerns about SJS's ability to adequately parent J once in the community. As noted by HT at C183, it appears that the decision taken at the LAC Review on 18^th March 2015 to allow SJS out in the community for short periods of time unsupervised with J "may have triggered a decline in SJS's consistency in terms of structure and routine".

Clearly, as noted by Dr Allam, SS and the Guardian, SJS has made some progress whilst in the foster placement and I have accepted that is the case too. She has provided better parenting to J whilst in that placement, as SS notes in her statement at C140. SS pointed out in her evidence to me that the progress which SJS has made is positive but must be seen in the context of the supportive placement which she is in currently. The placement is providing an extremely high level of support, as such mother and baby placements are designed to, but that support could not be replicated in the community as SS very clearly told me. Even with that high level of support in the current placement, as I have found, SJS has struggled to consistently maintain good enough parenting when she has had the opportunity of taking J into the community unsupervised. HT also told me that, despite the progress that SJS has made whilst in the placement with her, SJS is not yet ready to move out with J on her own. HT suggested that SJS may benefit from another three to six months in placement. SJS herself accepted that she was not ready to move out of the foster placement when she gave me her evidence. The issue has therefore become one of should I allow further time for SJS to make changes?

Dr Allam (who was not called and whose evidence was not therefore challenged) concluded that SJS lacked the emotional resources to parent J as a sole carer at this point in time (ie if she left the placement now) (E325). She also concluded that "she remains a vulnerable young mother who has (very recently) struggled to work co-operatively with Social Services and who continues to show a tendency to be deceptive and conceal information – most recently about her contact with HSA. I am concerned that should problems arise, SJS would not inform the relevant professionals and I have concerns about her emotional resilience given the history of the case and her limited insight into her recent difficulties and potential problems in the future" (E326). Dr Allam also notes that she has significant concerns about SJS "leaving her placement and going into the community without having engaged in work which will help her make better choices about relationships" (E327). She also identifies that SJS would need to engage in work on parenting intervention to focus on nurturing/attachment and children's social and developmental needs before she could move into the community and safely parent J (E327).

I am also mindful of the negative parenting assessment by Jamma Umoja. SJS did not entirely accept this assessment, although it does appear that she now accepts their conclusions at that time and has not sought to challenge their evidence by cross-examination. As was noted by SS in evidence to me, there is a considerable difference between the way in which Jamma Umoja and a mother and baby foster placement operate. Jamma Umoja operates a much more "hands-off" approach without the high level of coaching and prompting provided in the foster placement. As their assessment indicates, SJS's ability to meet J's needs did not improve whilst she was them and she does not now dispute that this was the case. What the Jamma Umoja assessment therefore provides for me is a clear indication of SJS's ability to parent without the intensive support which she receives in the foster care placement. Again, SJS does not really dispute this – her case is that she has made improvement since Jamma Umoja and that things have moved on sufficiently to consider that a further period of three months in the foster placement will enable J to be in her care. I know that she is a very young mother who clearly needed some guidance and instruction as a first-time mother. Despite some 5 months in the intensively supportive environment of the foster placement she still requires frequent prompting to perform basic care tasks and without this could not meet J's needs.

The issues of concern in this case also relate to her ability to consistently regulate her emotions and limit their impact upon her care of J, her ability to work openly and honestly with professionals and her capacity to address her own deep-seated issues and the impact these have on her parenting ability. This also links into the factual dispute about whether she remains emotionally involved with HSA, and possibly also physically involved with him. These are different issues and additional to the need for her to learn basic parenting skills. The assessment of Dr Allam is very helpful in terms of assessing these, as is the Jamma Umoja assessment. On the factual dispute about the parents' involvement with each other, I have evidence from SS as well as from the parents themselves and the telephone records.

Dealing with the issue of the extent to which the parents have physically and emotionally separated firstly, they both deny remaining physically involved but accept that there is still some emotional connection through being J's parents. It does seem clear to me that both parents have lied to professionals and to the Court about remaining in contact after the Jamma Umoja assessment ended. SJS has also lied to HT about remaining in contact with HSA – HT told me that she was only aware of them remaining in contact up to early December (though in fairness she said she would not be surprised if they had been in contact since then). The 'phone records clearly show contact going on into mid January this year. SJS told me in evidence that she was not just in contact with HSA about J (which is what she told professionals before), but that she would also phone or text him about the day. They also both lied to Dr Allam about remaining in contact when they saw her in February this year. Again, this is substantiated by the 'phone records as Dr Allam noted.

HSA was clear in his evidence that they had separated in March 2014 and only got back together for the purposes of the Jamma Umoja assessment. He denies staying with SJS at her flat as the Local Authority alleges he was on 18^th July 2014. As was submitted by Mr Miller on behalf of the Local Authority, he was found in the property on that date without any shoes on and initially denied that he was HSA. He accepted that he was in the flat but denied that he had no shoes on or that he was staying there and denies entirely what the social worker recorded as the conversation with him later that day when he admitted he had been staying at the flat. The level of detail provided by the social worker is quite striking and I can see no earthly reason for the social worker to be so mistaken about the absence of shoes and the "lengthy conversation" with HSA recorded at paragraph 4.7 (C55). HSA and SJS were simply not credible about this incident and I am satisfied on balance of probabilities that HSA did admit staying at SJS's flat on 18^th July as the social worker recorded.

There is then the allegation that the couple were seen together at SJS's flat on 15^th January 2015. That date has been arrived at by a process of elimination as the only date when SJS was not at the foster placement under the watchful eye of HT and because of the information which the neighbour obtained about the adjournment of the hearing from January to May, a decision that was only taken on 15^th January 2015. Again, both parents deny that they were at the flat at all. They do not dispute that the information has apparently come from SJS's upstairs neighbour, Mrs H. It is true that it is hearsay evidence as it comes via the Housing Officer to the social worker. However, hearsay is admissible in Family proceedings and the question is the weight that I attach to that evidence. SJS accepts that Mrs H knows her and therefore it seems clear to me that Mrs H would know whether or not it was SJS that she spoke to on this occasion. The details which Mrs H had about the adjourned hearing and SJS's plan to move to Buckinghamshire are also curious. SJS says that she posted on Facebook the fact that the hearing in January had been adjourned to May and that another neighbour is a Facebook friend. She therefore argues that this neighbour has presumably told Mrs H about the adjournment. SJS did not post anything on Facebook about her plans to move to Buckinghamshire and told me when cross-examined by Mr Miller that she had not at that point decided to move. I recall being told by her advocate in court on 15^th January 2015 that it was her intention to move to the Milton Keynes area so her statement that she made the decision later than this date is at odds with what I was told. Given that the parents remained involved with HSA staying at the property in July last year, I am afraid that I do not find their denials about the 15^th January 2015 very credible. The two key detailed pieces of information which Mrs H had about the adjourned date of the final hearing and the plan to move to Buckinghamshire on SJS's part also strongly suggest to me that it was as a result of a conversation with SJS on 15^th January 2015. Mrs H also knows SJS, and SJS knows her, so it does seem credible that she correctly identified SJS and HSA at the flat on 15^th January 2015. SJS also told me that she does not tell lies – I am afraid that she herself has accepted that she has at times lied to HT and to other professionals. Taking all of the evidence together, I am therefore satisfied on balance of probabilities that SJS and HSA were together at the flat on 15^th January 2015 as the Local Authority alleges. This leads me to conclude that the couple had not, in fact, physically and emotionally separated in the way which they said they have. There seems to me to still be a close emotional tie between them which goes beyond simply being J's parents, and up to 15^th January 2015 I find that they have also been in direct contact with each other, not just making contact via phone or text messages. This does also lead me to conclude that it is by no means clear that they can remain apart, as was the opinion of Dr Allam which I also accept.

HT also noted in her statement at C203 that J mirrors SJS's emotional state and that SJS "is consistent at times depending on how she is feeling emotionally. SJS's emotions will affect how she prioritises J's needs and the level of care she will give to him". SS was also of this opinion and Dr Allam also concluded that SJS requires therapy to address her deep-seated issues arising from her own childhood. It is not disputed that SJS has now followed up with her GP accessing NHS therapy. However, as SJS has indicated to the Guardian (E368), she simply does not see the point of therapy and therefore, as the Guardian notes, it is difficult to see how that therapy would achieve the changes Dr Allam notes are necessary. Without SJS starting the process with an acceptance that she needs therapy, it seems to me that the outcomes are likely to be limited at best, again as noted by the Guardian.

In terms of the second option in this case, which is a care order with a care plan for adoption, the disadvantages are that this will sever J's link with his birth family irrevocably. Such a decision does therefore have to be the only realistic option once other options have been ruled out. It is clear to me that J and SJS do have a bond and that SJS loves J very much. This is not disputed by the Local Authority and Guardian, though the Guardian did point out that the attachment observed by the foster carer may not be as secure as a lay person may think (the foster carer, of course, being a lay person in terms of attachment analysis). Certainly SJS herself accepts that her early experience with J in Jamma Umoja was not good – she told the Guardian that when she was at Jamma Umoja she felt she had to parent J but did not enjoy it (E367-8). She now feels that that she wants to parent J. Jamma Umoja perceived the attachment J had with his parents to be "an insecure, ambivalent attachment" (E139) – that evidence has not been challenged by SJS. Also as noted by Jamma Umoja "SJS accepts that her experiences of being parented impacts upon her ability to bond with J and that she struggles to promote a secure attachment between herself and J. Through her experiences, when there are expectations placed upon her that she is not able to manage, such as parenting or relationship, SJS has learned to detach emotionally and physically. It is felt that SJS needs therapeutic intervention to try to work through some of her past experiences. However, her motivation and commitment in the assessment would raise questions about her ability to commit to such an emotionally challenging process" (E148). Sadly, it seems to me that this remains the position today in light of the evidence of Dr Allam.

SJS has had since November to consider the recommendations of Jamma Umoja and to act upon them yet to date has only recently seen her GP and sought referral for therapy. The assessment of Dr Allam and SJS's own comments to the Guardian about therapy simply reinforces the view that she simply does not really accept that she needs therapeutic input. As she told me, she doesn't see how she will know that it will do her good until she starts it – this is rather missing the point, as she needs to start therapy accepting that she has issues which therapy will help her to address. Otherwise she is not going to get the maximum benefit from therapy because she is starting from a potentially negative perspective about therapy. It also suggests that therapy will therefore take longer to have any positive effect upon her even if she does come to see the benefits for her.

When coupled with the fact that she is still not ready to parent J in the community, which she accepts, and the Guardian's opinion that three months more in placement will not be sufficient to enable her to do so, I find that the likely timescales for her to make necessary changes are far beyond what is appropriate for J. J is now 20 months old and needs permanency sooner rather than later as the Guardian has very clearly pointed out both in her final report and in her evidence to me. By the combination of circumstances which led to the January final hearing being adjourned, SJS has already had longer than originally envisaged in which to demonstrate that she is capable of parenting J adequately in the community in the long term. She has not been able to do so in five months in her placement with HT, as she herself accepts by accepting that she is not yet ready to move out of the foster placement. I am also mindful of the fact that she has had not just the period in the mother and baby foster placement to demonstrate a capacity to change and maintain consistency, but was also afforded the time in Jamma Umoja, albeit that is a very different placement. Therefore the advantages to J of being placed for adoption are that he will have the permanency which he requires in a timescale which will be tailored to his needs rather than the needs of SJS. The value to J of his relationships continuing with both of his parents is questionable in light of my findings that SJS remains unable now to meet his needs without intensive support and is not likely to be able to do so within a timescale that meets the needs of J for permanency. When coupled with the disadvantages to him of remaining at risk of his needs not being met whilst cared for by his mother in the community now, or likely to be so at risk in the future based on my findings, this means that the advantages for J of this second option far outweigh the disadvantages. I therefore also find that his welfare throughout his life (which has to be my paramount consideration in relation to placement orders) will best be met by this second option of placement for adoption.

Conclusions

In light of my findings in this case, I will grant a care order to the Local Authority in this case in respect of J. HSA told me that he would consent to a placement order if I found that a care order is in J's best interests. Mr Miller for the Local Authority urged me to view this consent with caution, given the self-centred nature of some of HSA's evidence to me. However, HSA had both given his advocate clear instructions about this consent so that his case was put on that basis from the outset and told me very clearly that he would consent and accepted that he was unable to put himself forward to care for J. I will therefore accept that he has consented to a placement order. I will dispense with the consent of his mother to the making of that placement order as his welfare demands that her consent is dispensed with, and grant a placement order to the Local Authority in respect of J.

As HSA would formally need to consent on the correct form to a placement order and is not here to do so today, I will also therefore dispense with his consent to the making of such an order as J's welfare demands this. However, I wanted it to be noted that I felt HSA had tried to consent to the order.

There will also be detailed assessment of the publicly funded parties costs in this matter.